Concurrent findings on no clandestine removal meant no substantial question of law arose against confiscation and penalty relief.

Concurrent findings that clandestine removal and intent to evade duty were not established did not give rise to a substantial question of law. The appellate authorities accepted the explanation for non-entry in the RG-1 register, found no proof that the goods had reached a marketable stage or been removed with mala fides, and upheld the setting aside of confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty under the Central Excise Rules. In the absence of any legal issue warranting interference with those factual findings, the appeal was held not maintainable on the points raised.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the facts found by the Commissioner (Appeals) and affirmed by the Tribunal, any substantial question of law arose for interference with the order setting aside confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty under the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis: The appellate authorities had concurrently found that clandestine removal and intention to evade duty were not established. They accepted the explanation regarding non-entry in the RG-1 register and held that the goods were not shown to have reached a marketable stage or to have been removed with mala fides. Where concurrent findings of fact are recorded on appreciation of evidence, interference in appeal is not warranted unless a substantial question of law arises.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose, and the appeal was not maintainable on the issues raised.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent findings of fact on absence of clandestine removal and intent to evade duty do not give rise to a substantial question of law.

---